President Peter Pringle convened the 3/16/89 meeting of the Faculty Council at 3:17
p.m.

Approval of Minutes

The Secretary noted a correction on page four of the minutes of the 3/2/89 meeting: The
acronym for the Teacher Education Reform Planning and Implementation Committee should have
been TERPI. With this correction, the minutes were approved as distributed.

Budget and Economic Status Committee

The Chair of the Budget and Economic Status Committee, Professor Martha Butterfield,
presented the Committee's report. She thanked all the members of the Committee for their
diligence. The Committee met every other week in the fall and since January, it has met
weekly. She then called on various committee members to walk Council through the various
sections of the report (See Appendix A).

Committee member, Neil Riley, presented Section I - "Funding of Faculty
Lines." The first part of the report deals with perceived falling rates of
compensation on the campus. Raises in salaries have not been keeping up with inflation.
The changes in hospitalization have been the equivalent of a reduction in salary. The
Committee recommends that the salary pool be adjusted each year for inflation, plus at
least 2%. The Committee believes the current system is not quite what it should be. Now
even if the total salary pool increases at a rate equal to inflation, money is removed to
raise minimal salary levels, to fund exceptional merit, etc. This has the effect of giving
the other 80% of the faculty something less than inflation increases. For someone to
receive a real increase in salary, all the rest must pay that cost. This is not the
correct thing to do. The recommendation should be done for a number of reasons: 1) All
faculty work hard and are diligent and deserve to have a salary increase; 2) The 2% is
there for retention, compression and backwardation; 3) The Budget Committee will be able
to say what the salary pool should be each year--this is a normative approach to
budgeting. Professor Maurice Edwards moved the adoption of the recommendation on page one.

Professor Jack Thompson asked how the 2% was arrived at. Professor Riley said if
inflation in any given year was 4% then the raise pool should be 6%. Other salaries
outside a university environment tend to rise at the inflation rate plus 2%. Chancellor
Obear asked if the salary of each faculty member should at least go up by the rate of
inflation. Professor Riley said the Committee meant the faculty pool, not each individual
faculty salary. Professor Ric Schonblom said the controllers of the finances will want to
know where the 2% is to come from. He believes the Committee should say where. Professor
Riley said the Committee views the campus as a collection of assets. Expenditures for all
assets on campus with the exception of faculty salaries rise with inflation. We want to be
treated in the same way as the Arena or Fine Arts Center. We cannot tell the
administration where to get the money, but we believe this should be done. Professor
Schonblom pointed out that in the past when the faculty has said we want the
administration to take our raise out of the "such and such," they have gone
along with it. Professor Riley said this has not happened in his five-year tenure here. We
have been told there is only so much for the salary pool and it can be divided any way we
want. President Pringle said it was not strictly accurate to say that there was only a
limited pool. Dr. Boling told President Pringle that as long as tuition monies increased
then there are additional monies that the University may use at its discretion for faculty
salaries. Chancellor Obear said this assumes a growth factor. There is a certain
flexibility available at least on a theoretical basis. Some years the legislature
prescribes a specific amount. President Pringle said last year the widespread assumption
was that faculty received a 4% salary increase and this was inaccurate. Professor Riley
said that for any given year the budget pool ought to allow for inflation from the
previous year, plus have an overall increase of 2%. Professor Martha Butterfield added
that one of the purposes the Committee set at the beginning of the year was to deal with
the budget year. These recommendations if adopted can be used in the planning for next
year. They can be used in conversations with the legislators and THEC to say this is the
way we need to go.

The recommendation on page one passed by voice vote with one abstention.

Professor John Garrett from the Committee presented Section II, "Faculty Salaries
and the UTC Budget." This is where backwardation came from. He promised to teach
Council what an inelastic supply curve is and what it is doing to UTC. He expressed
gratitude for the blackboard.

This is a standard supply curve. As we get cheaper they hire more of us. In the early
70's people stopped going into academia.

Working conditions and real take-home pay went down. Graduate schools let out smaller
and smaller classes year after year. The supply curve is shrinking. Moving in. We have a
bunch of people retiring over the next ten years. The new supply curve is inelastic,
steep. That means the price jumps up a whole bunch. Because to create a lot of new
professors you have to expand graduate programs--which requires more professors. The
problem compounds itself. We will have lots of trouble hiring people. There is no relief
in sight. We will have to bring people in at high salaries. We will have unfilled slots
and when we do fill them we will be paying new people more than those who have devoted
their careers to UTC. Professor Mac Shawen pointed out that this will be more of a problem
for some disciplines than for others. Salaries advance at very different rates. Professor
Garrett said it was assumed for the first five years that this would occur in someone
else's discipline. It is spreading to each and every discipline. The hiring problem will
get worse. The only solution is resources--money. We need to find new sources of state
money. There is nothing nice about the trends. To do what needs to be done at UTC you need
a large increment in the amount of resources the state gives the institution. This is a
dire conclusion. In Tennessee we have a three-tier system with each tier funded at a
different level. UTK is on top; Memphis State is in the middle and everyone else is on the
bottom. As the crunch hits the state system, the state will choose which institutions it
will keep up to snuff. Our prospects do not look good to Professor Garrett. We need to
claw and fight our way up to the Memphis State level. This is a political decision. We
need to pressure our politicians. We do have many voices in Nashville. Professor M.
Butterfield pointed out that Professor Garrett was referencing the THEC budget on page
5--salaries have been funded at a zero inflation rate.

Professor Ken Venters moved approval of the recommendations contained in IIA, IIB, and
IIC.

Professor Nick Honerkamp asked how the current Council President and the heir apparent
felt about IIA1. Professor Campa said he endorsed them and will be aggressive. President
Pringle said he would write the first letter and Professor Campa could write the
subsequent ones. Professor Schonblom stated his belief that IIC2 is unworkable because UTK
has contrary interests and we will always be outvoted. Professor M. Butterfield said the
intent was to discuss common concerns--e.g., raises for faculty salaries on all campuses.
Professor Schonblom said it won't work. If UTK wins, we lose. He opposes IIC2. Professor
Felicia Sturzer asked why THEC uses a zero inflation factor for salaries. Professor Riley
said perhaps this should be asked in one of the letters President Pringle has
President-to-be Campa write. Vice Chancellor John Rudley said they look at the amount of
funds available. There are additional funds available, but only in years of full formula
funding. Our first fight is always to obtain full-formula funding. Professor Sturzer said
inflation factors exist for certain things, but not others. This has never been explained.
Funding is not determined by quality programs or even numbers of students. It is a very
political function. She agreed with Professor Schonblom. IIC2 won't work. UTK will win. We
cannot afford to play nice. Professor Jan Printz said the salary money was up to us, not
the System. She moved to delete IIC2 from the main motion.

Professor Larry Ingle spoke against the amendment. He said the System wants us divided.
We need a System-wide approach. We cannot win fighting alone. We must galvanize support
among colleagues on other campuses. Professor Schonblom pointed out that the Tennessee
Higher Education Faculty Assembly exists for this purpose. It meets two times per year on
such matters as this. Professor Marlowe asked what "equal representation" means.
Professor M. Butterfield answered, "One or two representatives from each
campus." Professor Marlowe asked if this was the case, how could we be outvoted.
Professor Butterfield said she didn't think we would be. She believes it's a valid
approach. Professor Habte Churnet asked if it mattered if we had a Systems Committee.
Professor Butterfield said hopefully it will. Professor Betsy Darken asked about the
Committee that already exists. Professor Schonblom said it is the Tennessee Higher
Education Faculty Assembly and that it devotes 75-80% of each agenda to faculty
compensation, insurance, etc. As a positive outcome of these meetings, he cited death
benefits to spouses. The Faculty Council President names our representatives. Professor
Mary Jo Cochran asked who they were. President Pringle has sent Professors Printz,
Schonblom and himself. Professor Printz pointed out that Professor Schonblom is the
current President of the Assembly. Professor Printz reported on the meetings at length.
The amendment to delete IIC2 passed by a vote of 19:5:3. The main motion to approve all
the other Section II recommendations passed by a voice vote. There was one abstention.

Section III - "Salaries by Sex and Rank" was presented by Committee member
Stan Fjeld. President Pringle asked if these data don't regularly go to Vice Chancellor
Rudley. The Vice Chancellor said they did not. Professor Fjeld pointed out that associate
professors in Management and Engineering are quite well paid and their salaries affect the
figures. Mean salary in Management is $43,000 and in Engineering is $41,000. They are all
male. Provost Sandra Packard said that Dick Gruetzemacher is doing a salary equity study.
There is a clear difference in the marketability of disciplines. His study will consider a
wide number of variables including years in rank. He will be doing this study during the
spring and summer. Professor Printz moved to approve the Section III recommendation.

Professor Darken said the Provost's point was well taken. The salary discrepancies do
not necessarily indicate sex discrimination. Professor Butterfield said that was not the
intent. The Committee just felt Mr. Rudley would like to have the data. Provost Packard
said we want to know historically how the various variables have affected salaries in each
category. Professor Sturzer felt simply referring the materials was not enough. She would
like Council to direct him to remedy any sex discrimination found after complete
information is obtained. Professor Darken offered a friendly amendment that Dr.
Gruetzemacher be asked to report to Faculty Council by September 1989 on his findings on
faculty salary by sex and rank. Provost Packard asked that a date not be specified due to
Dr. Gruetzemacher's other duties. Professor Darken still wanted the specific date. He will
include all information he has gathered. Professor Steve Kuhn asked if the point of the
amendment was to secure as much information on this topic as possible. Professor Darken
said it was. Dr. Gruetzemacher is to include the results of all his further
investigations. The amendment passed by voice vote without dissent. The main motion, the
recommendation on Section III, also passed by voice vote without dissent.

Professor Butterfield discussed Section IV - "Ratios of Faculty Positions to
Administrative Positions." She called Council's attention to the January 30 Faculty
Council Minutes and the Bill Fisher data. Just what individuals were included was not
clear. The data include open and unfilled positions in the 315 positions. She was not
clear whether or not coaches were included. The figures do include administrators who hold
faculty ranks such as Barbara Wofford. The consensus was that coaches were not included.
The recommendation from the Committee is that Council adopt a motion in support of the
Chancellor's stated goal of reducing administrative expenditures in the 1989-90 school
year and diverting extra funds to faculty salaries. Approval of the recommendation was
moved by Professor Maurice Edwards. Professor Mac Shawen stated he would like to have the
goal spelled out and to have a more numerical goal such as bringing the ratio to the
average of all institutions. Professor Shawen declined to move this suggestion as an
amendment. Professor Larry Ingle did, however. Professor David Wiley asked how we know the
average of all institutions is what we should adopt. Professor Printz said she'd like
someone to figure out what the average is because many junior colleges are worse off than
we are. She said Steve (Kuhn) was fast. He asked what she meant by that. Professor Robert
Marlowe asked what the standard deviation was. We may be talking about the same number and
just not know it. Professor Schonblom said the standard deviation for four-year
institutions is on the order of 0.7 and for the others is on the order of 0.3. Professor
Marlowe said the numbers are essentially the same and that the motion was meaningless.
Provost Packard noted that different institutions describe and define administrators in
different ways. She also pointed out these data do not include part-time faculty.
Chancellor Obear said the stated goal would not affect the ratio. The amendment failed by
a vote of 2:20:4.

The discussion returned to the main motion. Professor Sturzer asked how the costs would
be reduced. Chancellor Obear said budgets would be reduced. It would be more than just
personnel. It could come from many places--development, student affairs, operating
budgets, part-time faculty, etc. Next year will be year one of a five-year effort to do
this. Some will come from the administrative costs of the academic units under the
Provost. Professor Maurice Edwards asked why we could not use some of the interest from
the $23 million in the Centennial funds. Chancellor Obear said many of the funds and much
of the interest are restricted as to use--professorships, Chairs of Excellence, land, etc.
Other funds are included in the U.C. Foundation funds. The dollars are not available to
solve faculty salary problems. Provost Packard said some of those funds are currently
being spent as designated--for travel, faculty development, etc. Professor Shawen asked if
he correctly interpreted the recommendation to indicate that the Committee did not wish to
adjust the ratio. Professor Butterfield said that was correct. This recommendation passed
by voice vote without dissent.

Section V - "Benefits" - was presented by Professor Butterfield. This section
presents many items to be worked on by multiple groups. Faculty Council Executive
Committee needs to work with our legislators as do our administrators. The Committee feels
THEC has made errors--the zero factor for inflation, for instance. We are getting
decreased funding because THEC has us in the wrong category. We graduate more than 100
masters candidates per year and THEC has no category for this. Professor Ingle suggested
we consider each of the Section V subcategories separately. President Pringle agreed.

Professor Ingle asked what exactly was meant by the last sentence in the first
paragraph on page eight. Professor Butterfield replied that there were major concerns
about salaries, about health insurances, etc. and we need collaborative/collective action.
The alternative plan has been totally unacceptable. She would like to see a return to the
old plan with the prerequisite higher premiums. Professor Betsy Darken asked how high the
premiums were likely to be. Professor Butterfield said they would likely be about
$40/month. President Pringle said the local legislative delegation is very interested in
doing something about the whole insurance problem. Professor Printz said we must be sure
we don't penalize our employees who make $12,000/year and less. This is about one-fourth
of the campus. We need to have the legislators to come up with more money. Professor
Schonblom said most people want low premiums and high deductibles from their health plan.
The motion to approve the health plan recommendation failed by a vote of 12:1:15.

The discussion turned to maternity leave and leave of absence. Professor Ingle asked
what "nat bit" meant on page nine. Professor Butterfield said this was a typo
and should read "may not." President Pringle had assumed this was a technical
term like "backwardation." Professor Butterfield asked that the recommendation
be sent to Sarah Phillips in Personnel at UTK as well as to Mr. Wormsley. Chancellor Obear
asked what "referred to" means. Professor Butterfield said the Council cannot
adopt personnel policy but that the referral to Mr. Wormsley might be redundant. She would
be willing to delete Mr. Wormsley here. She does feel that all the benefit recommendations
do need to go to Mr. Wormsley. She suggested that Vice Chancellor Rudley could take all
the recommendations to the System-wide Benefits Committee.

Professor Jocelyn Sanders asked if there was anything in the recommendation to take
care of the possibility that the maternity leave might be rejected. Professor Butterfield
said this had not been considered. The biggest concern was that the current policy really
does not apply to faculty. There probably needs to be two distinct sections to the policy:
maternity leave separate from leave of absence and maternity leave for faculty and
non-faculty. Professor Betsy Darken said the recommendation was really asking these
various people to come up with a maternity leave policy for faculty and others, but it
doesn't say what that policy should be. Professor Butterfield said the substance of the
policy is addressed in the narrative. Currently, leave of absence doesn't address
maternity leave at all, nor is there any reference to faculty. Faculty are excluded
because they don't have sick leave. Longevity would be lost. Professor Sturzer asked if
the current policy provided for other kinds of leaves of absence for faculty. Professor
Butterfield said that presently we do have leaves of absence, but nine-month faculty are
probably excluded because they don't have sick leave. Professor Jack Thompson said it was
unclear what the recommendation includes. Does it include making nine-month faculty
eligible for sick leave? Professor Butterfield said, "Not necessarily." The
policy does need to include references to faculty and maternity leave. Professor Shawen
asked if there was no recommendation on paternity leave. Professor Butterfield said it was
paternity leave that was ruled unconstitutional. Ms. Karen Holt from the staff of the
University System Legal Counsel said the statute has been rewritten and cleaned up to just
refer to women. The purpose had not been clear. Professor Butterfield said the Committee
was merely identifying a problem area in the existing policy. Professor Nick Honerkamp
spoke in favor of the motion. The loopholes need to be closed. We need an explicit
maternity leave policy. During a System visit here Dr. Boling didn't know what maternity
leave was. The maternity leave recommendation passed by voice vote with one abstention.

The recommendation on sabbaticals was moved and seconded. Professor Honerkamp asked
what the Committee had in mind in terms of EDO evaluations when the person was not here.
Professor Butterfield said she wasn't sure how it could be worked out, but that a
sabbatical for educational purposes needs to be translated into the EDO. Some faculty have
lost longevity and been penalized in salary because of being on sabbatical. Provost
Packard said that currently if faculty are on sabbatical, participation in the EDO process
is their choice. If you are on leave without pay, participation in EDO depends on the
nature of the leave activity. Professor Honerkamp asked what if he accepted a Chair of
Excellence at some far-off University and was absent without pay. The Provost said
participation in EDO would be his choice. If you are off doing research, teaching would
not be an evaluation area. Professor Honerkamp noted this would preclude eligibility for
exceptional merit in some departments. The Provost said such criteria would need to be
clarified at the departmental level. Professor Ingle urged that leave for educational
purposes needs to be separated from a true sabbatical. On a sabbatical one can do whatever
one wants. Professor Butterfield assured him the Committee was talking about true
sabbaticals. These need to be adequately funded by either state or foundation funds.
Provost Packard pointed out the Handbook has two separate descriptions--faculty
development and sabbaticals. We get more funds by combining the two terms. Some years we
have more funds than others, depending on whether the faculty has taken a full year at
half pay or a half year at full pay. The recommendation passed by voice vote unanimously.

The last recommendation, page ten, dealt with reasonable notice for changes in
benefits. Professor Schonblom moved that "other concerns about benefits" should
be eliminated from this recommendation on the grounds of redundancy. This amendment passed
by voice vote. The recommendation was then approved unanimously by voice vote.

Professor Butterfield said a faculty member had asked why 20% of longevity pay is taken
out in taxes. The System selected this over taxing at the normal rate because it was less
detrimental to employees receiving small amounts of longevity pay. She went on to present
three other recommendations from the Committee: 1) that membership on the Budget and
Economic Status Committee be staggered so that there is continuity; 2) that at least one
member be from Accounting and Finance and/or Economics; 3) that an IBM-CMS account be
established by the Committee. Professor Ingle moved approval and commended the Committee
for its report. Professor Printz noted these recommendations would need to go to the
Handbook Committee. These recommendations passed unanimously.

Developmental Studies: Study Skills

This item was postponed to the next Council meeting.

Campus Inequality

Information on this topic was provided by Professor Jim Henry (See Appendix B). Provost
Packard said Richard Hannah has brought this issue to the Chancellor's staff and it is
being studied. We need to determine whether or not this can be done in accordance with
THEC policies. Both Provost Packard and Vice Chancellor Rudley support the change.
Professor Gary MacDonald spoke in favor of the recommendation saying his wife was also
affected. The recommendation passed without dissent.

Report from Executive Committee

President Pringle reported the following:

1. Receipt of a response from President Alexander as a result of the motion on Faculty
Counselors. He advises that he will be on campus later this month and will meet with
Executive Committee to discuss this and other items.

If you have items, please give them to a member of the Executive Committee. The date is
March 29.

2. Receipt of a response from Mrs. Davis on Council's recommended actions on transfer
and conditional students. (See Appendix C).

3. Attendance at a meeting with Dean Fox, Mrs. Davis and others on the academic
calendar. Discussions are continuing on three different drafts of a calendar for 1990-91.
President Pringle will keep Council informed.

He then called on Professor Renee Cox to discuss procedures of the Faculty
Administrative Relations Committee. Professor Cox said that the Echo editor has asked to
see one of the Committee's reports. This is a report on a grievance that has been sent to
the Chancellor. The Committee has been told that the report is public information. The
Handbook (p. 15) says that such reports are confidential. State law takes precedence. The
Committee regrets this and has protested. The report in question does not quote from or
even mention any faculty member other than the one who filed the grievance and his Dean.
Ms. Karen Holt commented that sitting through Council meeting was certainly educational.
She said she was here to dodge any slings and daggers anyone would like to throw at legal
counsel. She said the Handbook has many problems and really needs to revised. This section
even has an internal inconsistency--it sends documents to Board of Trustees which has open
meetings. There is no choice about making the report public when it becomes an
institutional record. Professor Jan Printz noted that, as a prior member of the Faculty
Administrative Relations Committee, she has cleaned out her files and she is sure other
past members will also. She asked if there was anything wrong with the Committee simply
reporting to the Chancellor that the grievance was either upheld or it was not. Ms. Holt
said what the report contains is up to the Committee, but she did not feel it was
necessary for the Committee to censor itself. Professor Honerkamp predicted that the
workload of the Committee will plummet--faculty will be averse to using the Committee in
light of publicity. Professor Printz disagreed. Professor David Wiley noted the main
report to the Chancellor could be made orally. Ms. Holt pointed out that detailed notes
were often helpful to the Trustees in trying to understand the chronology of a problem.
Professor Schonblom asked when the document becomes a record. Ms. Holt said a good rule of
thumb was when it had gone through the levels here on campus. Professor Wiley asked if it
was likely that the Committee members be subpoenaed. Ms. Holt said that it was not.
Professor Butterfield asked why school boards were able to exclude personnel matters from
public scrutiny. Ms. Holt said all state/county records other than student records are
open. Professor Honerkamp said school personnel records are also open. Times correspondent
Maria Noel asked if grievances became part of the Personnel record and was told they did
not. Chancellor Obear asked if Council minutes went to all faculty and was assured they
did. Professor Printz urged faculty not to give up on the Faculty Administrative Relations
Committee. She has faith in the Committee's sophistication and wisdom. The written report
will be the only thing changed.

President Pringle then called on Mr. Rick Wood and Mr. Richie Scranton to discuss the
Amphitheatre. They were from the Student Alliance and have been working on the
Amphitheatre project for the past two years. The project has been endorsed by the SGA. The
Amphitheatre is to be located between the Fine Arts Center and the Library. It will
provide a place for students and faculty to go to be outside. There will be no state funds
allocated for this. It is a "first time student fund raiser." Faculty and staff
are encouraged to make donations. For $30 you can buy a brick in the Amphitheatre. They
have raised $7,000 so far. The student goal is $50,000 and Chancellor Obear has pledged
$10,000 when that goal is reached. Alumni/Development has pledged to match the student
goal once it is attained. They have also received gifts in-kind. They hope construction
can begin this summer. There will be a phone-a-thon and a concert/carnival coming up. They
also hope for a $1.00 increase in activity fees to go to this project. Professor Marcia
Noe moved enthusiastic endorsement. This required a two-third's majority because it called
for a rules change. The rules change and the motion both passed unanimously by a show of
hands.

Facilities Concerns

1. Professor Kathy Breeden expressed continued concern about the cars parking on Vine
Street. They block the view of cars exiting from Lot 12.

2. Professor Nick Honerkamp was concerned about being able to exit the left side door
of the Signal Mountain Room. Several faculty had had difficulty leaving the meeting.

3. Professor Jan Printz is still concerned about the phone system. You cannot hear
often and you are disconnected frequently.

Member Concerns/Announcements

1. Professor Ric Schonblom announced the formation of the Black Students' Engineers
Club.

Adjournment

The meeting was adjourned at 5:22 p.m.

Faculty Council Nugget

Professor Neil Riley says the Faculty is one of a collection of University assets. The
Budget and Economic Status Committee Report makes "collection of asses" a more
apt description.